u/Alfreds_Allena

I think many of us have found that interacting with psychiatry in a quest to solve our mental distress resulted in a more profound form of distress, still containing elements of our original problem but highly compounded by coercive techniques and powerful psychotropics.

But even if someone is very forgiving, nuanced in thought, and somehow still sees worth in psychiatric care after such a violation of their autonomy or other negative encounter, what exactly are they supposed to do? It stands to reason that anyone in such a situation will need to make sense of their psychiatric experience in a honest manner before submitting themselves to any further treatment. But who are they to do this with?

It seems to me that once these immoral experiences have happened to you, and you wish to speak about them, that’s the end of the road for your “treatment.“ It appears to be impossible to discuss the true realities of psychiatry — both good or bad — with nearly any of its providers. The field cannot and will not stand for any type of criticism (even constructive) from its patients.

Any attempts to do so will almost certainly be pathologized, and hence run the risk of worsening your psychiatric label and thereby also indicating you need even more powerful drugs at higher doses. A recent poster just discussed how a nurse contended they were manic for questioning ECT in a group therapy — this is what I mean. The patient has but two choices at this stage — walk away from psychiatry entirely to seek alternative methods of healing, or mentally bury their medical abuse by continuing to comply, inevitably worsening their “mental illness” in the process.

Because coercion, involuntary treatment, and violence are staples of psychiatric practice, I believe that its practitioners cannot even mentally withstand an honest discussion about it; it is a stark reminder of their own immortalities that they — and the colleagues they surround themselves with — endlessly rationalize against the voices of their own consciences.

In order to be considered manic and thus diagnosed with ”bipolar I disorder,” you must meet a social, rather than medical, standard. The DSM outright instructs that mania only be diagnosed if a) one is hospitalized or b) their “symptoms” cause issues with social functioning. Neither of these are medical benchmarks.

It is key to understand why this diagnostic standard is so significant a blow against psychiatry‘s claim to be a medical or scientific discipline. From this definition, we can see that if a man embodies every single symptom of a manic episode, but he does anger the police, or the state, or his own family members enough, he shall never be diagnosed with bipolar disorder. The diagnosis hinges entirely upon causing a social disruption to others. Its defining feature is behavioral annoyance, not a pathology.

The same is true for all other severe mental illness, such as ”schizophrenia;” you can hear voices, believe the FBI is following you, or claim to be a reincarnation of Christ, and as long as someone does not take issue with your behavior or report you to authorities, you are not schizophrenic. It is thus easy to see why someone with ”schizophrenia” might isolate, as they see the danger comes not from the symptoms, but their acknowledgement by others.

Of course, eventually the monied interests expanded psychiatry beyond its original aims of social control. Hence, we were given new diagnoses such as “bipolar 2” where one can still be ill and require treatment, even if their “mania” disturbed nobody — not even themselves.

Isn’t it interesting how psychiatrists love to apply labels of bipolar and schizophrenia to past geniuses or revolutionaries who never received any mental health treatment? Isaac Newton, William Blake, George Fox, etc. Yet we can see this tactic is purely to elevate themselves and their own work (they’re working with the downtrodden genius!) , because in practice, they would never agree that ANYONE might be more creative, impactful, intelligent, or vital to society without their treatments.

I cannot subscribe to the simplistic assertion that everyone who goes into the field of psychiatry is intrinsically evil, narcissistic, or sadistic. Reality is nearly always some shade of gray.

Contrarily, I think many psychiatrists — and especially the younger crowd — went into psychiatry because there is something inherently fascinating about mental disturbances such as mania, psychosis, obsessive fixations, and so on. In actuality, these states have greatly contributed to many of the human religious, moral, and social systems dominating the earth throughout its long history; “if Jesus were alive today, he’d be put in a psych ward.” Probably so.

There‘s a sort of perplexing mystique always accompanying a man who has abandoned all commonly held notions of reality to pursue a profound spiritual or philosophical belief, as is commonly seen in “severe mental illnesses.” We can almost always sense an inexplicable truth being expressed by those with “madness.”

I believe it is this mystique, combined with the general human disposition to help others, that leads many to the field of psychiatry. The sad truth of the matter is this fascination —and this natural empathy — is beaten out of them by the system itself. Outside of deceptive language, there is no place for it with the current aims of psychiatry; providers must conform to the violence of the system or be rejected by it themselves. And it is not by entering the field of psychiatry, but here, that these individuals truly lose their integrity — in the transformative process of becoming a modern psychiatrist.

By this process, they transform themselves into mere voyeurs, enjoying the mystique of the ”mentally ill“ yet denying that they do so. It’s their little taste of rejecting the absurdity of modern life, lived vicariously through another, whom they must inevitably bully into submission given the nature of their profession.